Classic HN, references a paper as if the conclusions are fact and all references are equivalent.
This is a paper where the authors did no experiments of their own, just put forth a hypotheses.
The lead author is an “independent scientist”.
Suffice to say I’d be very suspect of the conclusions drawn.
The other one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephanie_Seneff
“In 2011, she began publishing controversial papers in low-impact, open access journals on biology and medical topics; the articles have received "heated objections from experts in almost every field she's delved into,"”
It’s causing all the bad things? That would be amazing if true, unfortunately it sounds unlikely (chiropractic comes to mind) and the rest of the science world doesn’t believe these authors.
If the graphs in the paper seem compelling, make sure to spend some time here: https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
Here, we propose that glyphosate is the most important causal factor in this [celiac disease and gluten intolerance] epidemic.